NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6575

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 18.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Blaming the Victim
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:47:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 338

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>JP> This is to Mr. J. Dunphy:
>        Just as the women you seem to keep involving yourself with,
> you are walking time-bomb looking for a place to happen.
>
>RP>If this had happened to a woman, what you are doing would be called -blaming
>   the victim-. And further, you are saying that things like this will happen
>   in the future, and they will also be his fault.
>
>This is a complete misinterpretation of my statement.

Since the first sentence is a statement of my own, it is not an interpretation,
much less a "misintrepretation". The second statement is just a paraphrase of

>        Just as the women you seem to keep involving yourself with,
> you are walking time-bomb looking for a place to happen.

I have trouble understanding your claim of "complete misinterpretation".
It seems more likely that you are the one who is guilty of misrepresenting
my post. This is just another manifistation of the blame game, why even
attempt to communicate when it is so much easier to blame someone? And
since women are victimized (by definition) you will probably be supported
for doing this.

>                                                       Pardon me for being so
>thoroughly disturbed at this man's complete and utter hatred of women.

I read his posts as well, and I think you missed a lot. I read -anger-, not
hatred. If you think that there is hatred, indeed, "complete and utter hatred",
how about posting the text that gave you this impression.

The only thing I saw which might give one that impression is the disclaimer...

|Politically incorrect and misogynistic without apology !

Notice that it does not say 'misogynistic without cause', and his posts
were nothing more that summaries of cause.

>                                                                     It made
>me VERY uncomfortable since he made it quite clear that ALL WOMEN should pay
>for these few women's terrible deeds.

This is not true. He said that it was not worth it to have relationships
with women, not that all women should pay.

>You also haven't considered the fact that if I was in Mr. Dunphy's position,
>and had had so many terrible relationships with the opposite sex, I would begin
>to question my own judgement.

You have not considered the fact that this has nothing to do with what I
was talking about, the fact that you are blaming-the-victim.

>                                Since he seems to continue to get into these
>situations, he should question the type of woman he is attracted to so 'this
>won't happen in the future' and he can be assured that if it does, that it
>will not be his fault.

Here, you said it again, "he can be assured that if it does, that it will
not be his fault". This was my original point, when a women is in a similar
       ---------
situation, it is still the mans fault. She is just an innocent victim.

>                       Women change their behavior in this way all the time.
>If this is blaming the victim, then I am apparently ready to apply this not
>only to men, but to women and to myself. He has been a victim, and for that
>I am sorry.

My observation is that women in general are more into blaming the men today.
My point is that we treat otherwise identical situations completely different
based upon no more than the sexes of the one who claims victimization.

As for "Women change their behavior in this way all the time", I have not
seen it. In fact, there were some posts recently about women who repeatedly
have relationships with bausive men.

>When someone publicly expresses hatred for all people of your kind, Mr. Payner,
> I hope you can respond in a less callous manner.

Once again...

|Politically incorrect and misogynistic without apology !

The above is the only clear statement of misogyny, and it does not read
`misogynistic without -cause-`. I read anger in his post, not hatred.
Perhaps you should re-read. Just in case the post has expired at your
site, I have appended it below.


Rich

[e-mail]



-----------------------------------------------

6065

Xref: netcom.com soc.men:49268 alt.feminism:6065 soc.women:45202
Path: netcom.com!csus.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u53644
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 13 Dec 1992 21:48:33 CST
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
Lines: 226

A few comments..........................

        1. I wasn't "silenced", contrary to some comments made. As a few
           people on the net will tell you, I respond to harassment with
           >successful< litigation. Ms. Weiss was in typical female form in
           her response, though - advocating the harassment of someone who
           expressed a point of view that she disliked, and too cowardly to
           do the illegal act she advocated herself.

           No, I've simply been too busy. Unlike some on the net, I have a life
           and am not about to waste very much of it here.

However............

      Let me tell you about the recent dating experiences of a cetain woman,
      let's see what you think about the men she's been meeting.

Her most recent boyfriend, who had seemed stable and relatively nice until
recently, in fact did the following.......

       1. While she was in the kitchen cooking him dinner, stole $120 out of a
          hiding place in the room.

       2. Neglected to tell her that he was carrying herpes, and kept trying to
          get her to have sex with him without protection. When confronted with
          this, defended it on the basis that "well, I haven't had a really bad
          outbreak lately, so what's the big deal?" Yelled at her because there
          was a brief delay in her getting HIV testing (clinic was booked up),
          insisted that she not even say hello to other men, but slept around
          behind her back.

      3.  After the breakup, angered by the fact that she wouldn't agree that
          Roger Ebert had masterminded his accident ("well, he was the other
          person's landlord, and acted nervous when I called him"), sought
          revenge for her daring to disagree with him :

                 Typed some threatening letters to himself, and typed her
         name at the bottom of the letter. Typed a letter to her neighbors
         referring to them as "chink faggots", indicating that she would
         not tolerate any more noise from them, and would take action if they
         didn't quiet down. Forgot that she had a mild case of cerebral palsy
         that made it impossible for her to use a manual typewriter.

              The neighbor decides that, even after being advised that she
         didn't type the letter, and wouldn't be able to anyway even if she
         wanted to, takes the position that it's her responsibility even if
         she had nothing to do with it, and tells her that he will have her
         arrested if he gets another one. She argues with him about the
         fairness of this, and seeing that she's arguing with a brick wall,
         tells him what an incredible jerk he is, and indicates that she'll
         file a suit for false arrest if he does this. He asks her, how dare
         she raise her voice to him, and that if she talks back to him again,
         he'll call the police. She tells him to get lost.

         The police arrive, forcibly enter her room over her protest, look
         through it without a warrant, or even the allegation of a crime - just
         an assertion from the neighbor that she wasn't nice to him. In the
         same precinct where, when she was sexually assaulted last year, she
         only got one cop who asked her if she enjoyed it, and no investigation
         or even a report, over a dozen officers have appeared, threatening
         harassment, and indicating that she'll be locked up if she talks back
         to her neighbor again (the officers are male), and that they'll
         perjure themselves in court to back each other up. They keep her there
         an hour, demanding that she apologise to him, for objecting to what he
         had said, and threatening to arrest her if she doesn't. Afterwards,
         she goes downstairs, and the man at the desk defends the neighbor
         going "Well, maybe you're guilty, so until we're sure, should you
         be out ?" Guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable shadow of a
         doubt.

         Later that night, the two neighbors are keeping her up until 3 am.
         When she calls over to ask them to quiet down, they stop yelling -
         only to start pounding on the walls. Finally, she calls the police
         very nervously, but she's sort of in luck -  a female cop arrives.
         The neighbors are gently persuaded to quiet down (no sarcasm - the
         officers are practically begging them. A bit different from earlier,
         eh ?) They try to argue that she only minded being kept up until 3am
         because of that note she sent, and that they should be able to keep
         going, but the cop's pleading eventually gets them to quiet down, in
         exchange for a warm thank you from the cop.

         The next day, and afterwards, she gets harassing phone calls from her
         ex-boyfriend - easily traceable with automatic callback. When she
         complains to the authorities about this (the same ones who didn't
         bother to look into the possibility that someone else had typed the
         letter mentioned earlier - the fact that the neighbor felt that she
         typed it, even though they admitted not having seen anyone slip it
         under the door. She is still having to deal with the hate crimes
         unit on this matter : accusation = guilt), the authorities tell her
         that they're sure it must be her fault - if she had been a good
         girlfriend, he wouldn't act like this. So they won't do anything.

Sound like justice to anyone ? Any women out there want to go out with this
guy ? Let's add a little detail to flesh this guy out. He has defended rape,
on the basis that it makes women understand how a man feels when he's abused.
He is part of a medical research team, and was responsible for a decision that,
during a clinical trial, left a number of women untreated for a disease that
ultimately killed them. When the woman who was dating him found out about this,
and was upset about this, he complained bitterly about how narrow minded she
was, and how she was oppressing him. He also yelled at her for not apologising
for having a slight stammer, and then started whimpering when she refused to
apologise.

Everyone who knew this man commented on how great a catch he was, knowing all
of the above. He was better than the other men around - and the other men
mostly agreed with this. Does this guy sound at all like a thug to you ?

Sound like fun ? Reverse the genders in the above account, and you have a
description of the last few fun packed weeks my new ex-girlfriend gave me
(except I did leave out the phone calls she made to my parents).

The sick thing is, her behavior wasn't at all unusual. Our society accepts
behavior like this from women, and for the most part, they accept it from
themselves. "Well, Joe, she's probably feeling very upset right now". Well,
I've felt very upset at times, too, but never did anything like any of that.

Why ? There are a few mechanisms in play :

       1. Denial. As the followups to my previous post beautifully illustrated,
                  if women go way over the line on something, people will
                  pretend it never happened, and will distort reality until it
                  fits a politically correct mold.

               1a. Fear. Leads to denial. Men are afraid to say anything
                   negative about the opposite sex because of fear of
                   harassment (as Beth Weiss has advocated), social isolation,
                   possible consequences at work sometimes, loss of
                   a relationship, and involuntary celibacy - while women
                   (pardon me, womyn) feel free to rip into men, they will
                   argue that the reverse either isn't permissable, or
                   that anyone who does so should he celibate because he
                   hates womyn so much (of corse, they see nothing wrong with
                   saying that men are pigs, then continuing an active
                   heterosexual dating life).

                Feminists even have a term for this factor, and mention it
                as something to be cherished and exploited - "sexual power".
                Like most forms of power, it is meaningful only when it is
                abused.

      2. Rationalisation. "Well, on the surface it may seem wrong, BUT there
               are these other factors involved......"

                           How can I sum up all of the possible scams that
                           one can pull, defending the indefensible when
                           one profites from it, or that one may participate
                           in once one's been snowed/intimidated ?

                           Suffice it to say, one thing I do agree with
                           feminists on : women are the stronger sex. The way
                           men usually crumble in arguments with them proves it


At any rate, lest one think that this was just a bad week........

           Let's see, there was the one who got me beaten up because I asked
           her if she'd like to dance (not to be confused with the one who
           accused me of following her around, as a way of getting large male
           "protectors" (she was short on dates), even though I very visibly
           RAN in the opposite direction any time she approached).

           There was the one who on the third date started telling me about
           her marital problems, and was upset because I ended the date very
           quickly at that point (I don't do adultery). There was the one who
           sent me home in mid-date because my presence was making it more
           difficult for her to pick up a band member (gosh, they tend to be
           so selective).........

The point is, on a personal level, it is impossible for a woman to behave badly
enough for those around her to condemn her behavior, as long as it's directed
against a man. The idea that they can be wrong, even in theory, hasn't dawned
on them in many cases - they've been raised to act and think like spoiled brats
Indeed, a "never wrong" mentality is considered tough, assertive,and admirable!

One has to seriously ask, is it worth it ? Are the meager rewards of a
relationship worth the abuse, and the risks (not just emotional). For me, and I
suspect, for a great many men, I don't think that it is. Part of the problem is
that there is a stigma that goes with being an unattached male. But, as if we
refuse to internalise that stigma, that should become a minor issue. The other,
of course, is the problem of unattended sexual needs, but the pleasure is so
momentary, and the hassle that goes with it so extensive, that the trade-off
here seems bad, if not foolhardy. Besides, sex IS available outside of
relationships, and ask something pursued for its' own sake, it's something many
man only need once in a long while.

Need for affection ? That's very real - a universal human need. Unfortunately,
society is not structured to give men much of it, and once one gets past the
roleplaying so common in members of the opposite sex, one finds that only a
lucky few men actually get it in a sexual relationship (and one isn't sure
about them). At some point, one has to learn to seperate affection from
sexual attraction, and realise that they have little to do with each other.
One can seek support and concern form one's brothers and friends without being
gay - I wonder where society got the the idea that one couldn't. I may find
the girls in the gym attractive, but if I was in trouble and needed help, or
needed a shoulder to cry on, I'd turn to one of my brothers or friends long
before I'd turn to any girlfriend, because I know where I'd get more support.
I know which relationships are really important.

Let's not give the opposite sex any more importance than it actually possesses.
They don't do much for us, but that's OK - we don't need them to.

                                                       J. Dunphy

AS USUAL, E-MAIL RESPONSES ARE NOT WELCOME, THOUGH (OF COURSE) FOLLOWUPS
ARE PERFECTLY OK (Someone seemed to think I was objecting to those ! Of course
not ! I just don't promise to read them.)

Politically incorrect and misogynistic without apology !




PS. Some while ago, I rather cynically flamed a number of people here for
defending 'divorce on demand' for men. I feel I must apologise for this. At the
time, I felt that men were just chucking loyal, supportive mates because their
looks had faded (something that is, of course, inevitable) - that they had
made an agreement, gotten the full benefit from it and then reneged on their
end of the deal.

My eyes have since been opened. When I have been shown how casually men have
been tossed aside after layoffs, or because his wife's friends don't like him,
and how they have to pay in alimony for the privilege of being abandoned - I
find a lot of what some of you had to say a lot easier to understand. Why
should you have to show loyalty that you're not being shown yourselves ?
I don't blame you one bit. Sorry about that.


-----------------------------------------------